[Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening

[Samuel Klein]

I continue to be inspired by the quality of discourse in this debate.

Noein, I appreciate all of the points you make below, but want to call
out one in particular:

> My current vision is that there are several main obstacles to a free
> interaction, for example:
> - - illiteracy
> - - no internet access
> - - cultural rejection
> - - political censorship

Also "- - language barrier" for people literate in a language with no content.

You are right that we should consider what we can do about pragmatic
obstacles.  And all of these are of real importance.  Communities that
are restricted by one of these obstacles are often those most in need
of free access to information.

Sam


On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Noein <pronoein at gmail.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 13/05/2010 13:01, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> I don't know that reaching everybody was ever a stated goal. Being
>> theoretically available to everybody is a different matter...
> Ah, that's the part that is not clear to me. If you talk about the
> intrinsic properties of the Big Project, I agree that the core must be
> free, uncensored resources.
>
> My concern, however, is about the interface with the real world, that
> is, the way this project containing information, ideas and knowledge
> (specifically set in the context of the 21st century, mostly english
> language, mostly western, mostly rich users) interacts with mankind.
>
> Allow me to explain:
>
> My current vision is that there are several main obstacles to a free
> interaction, for example:
> - - illiteracy
> - - no internet access
> - - cultural rejection
> - - political censorship
>
> With this context, I wonder if being theoretically available is enough,
> or if the Foundation and community should worry about solving or
> circumventing the pragmatical obstacles.
>
> I understand the debate of the last days as an example about what I call
> a political censorship, in a very generic meaning: an arsenal of
> cultural values and technological means that forbid some ideas to
> circulate, thus governing the minds into certain authorized or tolerated
> behaviours (and thoughts).
>
> I think most of mankind feel some kind of taboos are necessary to
> achieved a civilized society. This feeling leads to the need (and thus
> acceptation) of laws, which can be viewed as a legitimized form of
> censorship.
>
> Because of this generalized feeling towards laws, it is impossible to
> sum up all the knowledge of humanity without offending each of these
> cultural laws, and thus incommoding their believers. Abiding to the
> cultural laws of a community gives a sense of belonging, of identity, of
> security... It's a strong, common urge.
>
> Let's add to this fact that many of those laws are in the hands of
> "tutors" who use them as a tool to shape their "protected ones". (It
> doesn't matter if I agree with their values or not, I'm focused on the
> mechanism.)
>
> The result is that you have deciding people between the foundation
> projects and their potential users, deciding people that have control of
> the flow of information. If they lose this control they lose power and
> their community (or child, for example) will lose faith in the official
> values and may start differing. From their perspective, it's the
> beginning of chaos.
>
>
> So, back to Wikipedia an Commons. Allowing such conflicts (free
> universal information versus locally controlled information) would
> antagonize the leaders and "disturb" the society order (which may be
> viewed as good or bad from our point of view, but is usually terrifying
> from theirs).
>
> The pragmatical approach seen in the debates is to compromise enough to
> avoid the conflicts and keep reaching the censored masses, minimizing
> the compromise of principles.
>
> The idealistic approach seems to only care about the internal community.
> For example:
>
>> David (a real thought leader) Goodman wrote:
>>> If there is a wish for a similar but censored
>>> service, this can be best done  by forking ours;
>
> But the wish to censor is not internal (except for parent maybe), thus a
> fork wouldn't be followed by users. It's not users who want the
> censorship system, it's detractors who don't want any out of their
> control, free access to information to begin with.
>
> My impressions from the last events is that people who believe in
> Wikipedia and Commons projects don't wish major changes to the
> censorship system that is satisfactorily self-managed by the users and
> editors.
>
> I think the people who feel strongly threatened by the lack of
> censorship on Wikipedia and Commons are whether from an opposing side or
> on a confused, testing phase. Because there is a war of influence, I
> wonder if we are robust enough to ignore the "enemies" we're creating by
> our very existence, given that they are influential. Fox News, Iran,
> China are just symptoms: what's happening here is that we're beginning
> to be a threat, imho, and that an escalation of hostility is to be
> expected the more we are successful and they become aware of us.
>
> Is it wise to ignore how the rest of the world reacts to the free access
> of information? Can the community thrives only on the shoulders of the
> people not offended by our current handling of information, or not?
>
> I don't know the answer, but I think we should be attentive and
> realistic enough to avoid a war, for example. That is not saying that we
> should change or compromise just to please. But if we choose to
> compromise, in this case allow some kind of censorship, forked or not,
> we need to know what's at stake and the dangers.
>
> Most of the libertarian communities that I know failed because they were
> too disturbing / annoying for the surrounding powers. There should be a
> constant acute perception of that. Maybe I've been too long in South
> America to have blind faith in our enemies, but a net with a few key
> nodes (which is our current organization, if I'm not mistaken) is
> extremely simple to disassemble.
>
> Note: my position is not that they are enemies, but that they feel like
> we are. I think misunderstanding is the root of wars.
>
>
>
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL7EV7AAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6L56IIAOUzmSJ5p21+M2nV0RD4Vq8M
> 5pGWqTm5QlZoxYRDnobkrYfIbm4i4v4QLzc51TmqK2WPqpiTIA1tsPHsp3hLRTHG
> kJUvoPxsfgWBznUPZt2UuYwqBrNoK/LmBiExKBGVfmK7gA+eprv0C6Q4l95Uct7F
> VCubd2IxKFkYF0A8c5KGkaHATLXm/pbyFGNRM/1KpgSgAttCog/kapPeRG5D/hMO
> EMzlUJcKHBHjlbghaoGq0gew5SXJ4RJa9q5sH7u8UXMO2hoBMFh5IvdKDOE9qG9Y
> SJ5h6QDGKg0xx4JAtLeR3IAjCaocMBR32oY5keKnCldaorNzVBc6edOV8Jy3Kwk=
> =fGkc
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>